A former co-chairman of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, Democratic Rep. Mike Thompson, D-Calif., and 10-term House Republican Jack Kingston — a Georgia lawmaker elected with strong National Rifle Association backing — were the latest to join the call to consider gun control as part of a comprehensive, anti-violence effort next year.

"Put guns on the table, also put video games on the table, put mental health on the table," Kingston said.

My initial reaction was, seriously, video games? Video games aren't the reason that people kill children in cold blood.

However, there's an argument that video games desensitize people to violence. If there's a realistic and sensible way to keep violent, rated-M games out of the hands of teenagers, I guess I'm fine with it. However, it's a small, small part of any violence problem.

I am kind of with them. Video Games have gone way over the edge IMO. It is shocking how realistic they are, and how violent.

This isn't mortal combat, where cartoonish characters are jumping 12 feet in the air and throwing fireballs. It is realistic, and from an outsider, looks like they are trying to train killers and criminals.

Considering that many adolescents are often still developing their abilities to differentiate fact from fiction, I think there could be a real issue here.

AND GET OFF MY LAWN!

That last line is pretty spot on, imo

No offense, obviously, but I have to disagree.

I play Counterstrike and Modern Warfare, two pretty realistic shooters.

Though the story draws you in like nothing else, I can hardly say it's making me feel like I'm holding a gun and shooting at people. It's a game. Kids nowadays *grow up* with games. They know that it's not real, and that the real thing is different.

I've never punched or kicked a person in my life, let alone shoot at people with guns.

Heck I wouldn't even know how to get the safety off a gun (guns have a safety switch thing right?) let alone reload one.

I'd give you this much;

If I was a person in the midst of a depression, who had trouble discerning games from reality, who knew how to get his hands on guns, who was unable to feel for others, and if I was also planning on ending my own life...

Sure, in that situation, the games add to it.

But swap the game for Tom Glancy books/Rambo movies and you've got that same person.

A former co-chairman of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, Democratic Rep. Mike Thompson, D-Calif., and 10-term House Republican Jack Kingston — a Georgia lawmaker elected with strong National Rifle Association backing — were the latest to join the call to consider gun control as part of a comprehensive, anti-violence effort next year.

"Put guns on the table, also put video games on the table, put mental health on the table," Kingston said.

My initial reaction was, seriously, video games? Video games aren't the reason that people kill children in cold blood.

However, there's an argument that video games desensitize people to violence. If there's a realistic and sensible way to keep violent, rated-M games out of the hands of teenagers, I guess I'm fine with it. However, it's a small, small part of any violence problem.

It's a false equivalency, plain and simple.

Here's one for ya--mandatory IQ/other intelligence testing prior to gun ownership. No possibility of gun ownership if any member of immediate family has any kind of recorded history of mental health issues, from a prozac prescription to a stint in an asylum. No possibility of gun ownership if any member of the immediate family owns a Playstation, an Xbox, a Nintendo, or a personal computer.

There, I've successfully put all three things on the table.But I think you'll find that...one of these things is not like the other. One of these things just doesn't belong.

Logged

Quote

When informed by a fan that he had no right to opine on baseball, Falls replied, “My office lets me write obits and I’ve never died.”

Quote from: Bill Walton

The greatest moment of my basketball career was when I beat Kevin McHale 1 on 1 in front of the entire Celtic family in June of 1986.

The Preamble states: "To provide for the COMMON Defense...". What that means is to create an atmosphere in which people are allowed to protect themselves from the possible aggression of others. The Second Amendment begins with "A well armed militia...", but that did NOT refer to an Army. HUGE difference.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It does not begin with "A well armed militia" as you wrote in your post.

Many 2nd Amendment types seem to forget the "well regulated" part of the amendment. NRA headquarters in DC only has the second part of the 2nd Amendment on their headquarters, conveniently omitting the word "regulated."

Okay I'm a guy calling for the 2nd Amendment to be repealed but here are some concessions I would be all for:

- complete ban on automatic weapons of any kind.

- complete ban on any semi-automatic weapons that are easily converted to fully automatic.

- limit of cartridge size for all weapons other than those used in the military and law enforcement.

- limit of one weapon per person.

- comprehensive psychological study of any person who currently owns weapons and those applying for weapons.

- buy back program at fair market value for all people who currently own more than one weapon and have to turn in their extra weapons.

- special permits allowed to own more than weapon for gun collector's and firing ranges or those that can prove they have hunting licenses to hunt more than one type of game. Permits are yearly and hefty in size.

And as a way to ensure our children are protected in all public elementary, middle or high schools, at least one officer per 500 students must be stationed at the school whenever the school is in session. It will mean more police officers, but maybe that can be offset by removing police details from officers and creating companies that do the detail work that police officers receive time and a half for.

Great list. I dont agree with all of them, but I think this is what we need ... ideas to move us forward. Where we are isnt working.

I agree on a lot of points and unlike some here I'm not going to get into a political argument but am going to be writing my congressman expressing my opinions. We need pressure on this, anyone who thinks this way can do the same.I completely agree on your ideas 1-3 and think it is possible to get these passed. I also think anyone currently owning these type of weapons should be given back their money and HAVE to trade them in no matter when they were purchased. Also another point that was brought up on NPR this evening, armor piercing bullets, these should not be available for public purchase. As the interviewer(ee) stated deer don't wear bulletproof clothing and for the life of me I cannot understand WHO needs these weapons. Bullet piercing ammunition is for shooters or criminals. If the criminals would only shoot each other great but it is mainly to shoot police officers. A gun collector should be able to look at the big picture and instead of having a military assault rifle purchase a really nice browning or something like that instead.

The Preamble states: "To provide for the COMMON Defense...". What that means is to create an atmosphere in which people are allowed to protect themselves from the possible aggression of others. The Second Amendment begins with "A well armed militia...", but that did NOT refer to an Army. HUGE difference.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It does not being with "A well armed militia" as you wrote in your post.

Many 2nd Amendment types seem to forget the "well regulated" part of the amendment. NRA headquarters in DC only has the second part of the 2nd Amendment on their headquarters, conveniently omitting the word "regulated."

“Well regulated” was not used in the way you are suggesting. Most “2nd amendment types” understand that. To suggest it meant, in any form, “More government”, represents a complete lack of acknowledgement of contexts and time in which the Constitution was written.

Quote

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The reference to a "well regulated" militia, probably conjures up a connotation at odds with the meaning intended by the Framers. In today's English, the term "well regulated" probably implies heavy and intense government regulation. However, that conclusion is erroneous.

The words "well regulated" had a far different meaning at the time the Second Amendment was drafted. In the context of the Constitution's provisions for Congressional power over certain aspects of the militia, and in the context of the Framers' definition of "militia," government regulation was not the intended meaning. Rather, the term meant only what it says, that the necessary militia be well regulated, but not by the national government.

To determine the meaning of the Constitution, one must start with the words of the Constitution itself. If the meaning is plain, that meaning controls. To ascertain the meaning of the term "well regulated" as it was used in the Second Amendment, it is necessary to begin with the purpose of the Second Amendment itself. The overriding purpose of the Framers in guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms was as a check on the standing army, which the Constitution gave the Congress the power to "raise and support."

As Noah Webster put it in a pamphlet urging ratification of the Constitution, "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe." George Mason remarked to his Virginia delegates regarding the colonies' recent experience with Britain, in which the Monarch's goal had been "to disarm the people; that [that] . . . was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." A widely reprinted article by Tench Coxe, an ally and correspondent of James Madison, described the Second Amendment's overriding goal as a check upon the national government's standing army: As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

Thus, the well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state was a militia that might someday fight against a standing army raised and supported by a tyrannical national government. Obviously, for that reason, the Framers did not say "A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State" -- because a militia so regulated might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the "security of a free State."

I'm in favor of strict gun control/regulation, but every political instinct I have tells me that after a flurry of hearings and legislation, nothing more than renewed ban on assault weapons will pass.

Around the same number of Newtown victims are killed every day in the US by guns (and that doesn't even include suicides).

Japan (pop. 127m) has violent video games, and about 20 people are shot to death yearly in Japan, which would quality for a somewhat peaceful DAY in the US. They have extremely restrictive gun laws (.25 guns per 100 citizens. The US has 88/100).

Canada (pop 35m), which has the same video games, easy gun access, and a lot of guns (24 per 100 citizens), but they have less than 200 gun murders a year (.06 gun murders per 100,000. Almost all of Canada's guns are registered.

The US (pop 310m) has 88 guns per 100 citizens, the highest percentage in the world by far. We have 9000 or so gun murders a year (around 3 per 100,000).

The Preamble states: "To provide for the COMMON Defense...". What that means is to create an atmosphere in which people are allowed to protect themselves from the possible aggression of others. The Second Amendment begins with "A well armed militia...", but that did NOT refer to an Army. HUGE difference.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It does not being with "A well armed militia" as you wrote in your post.

Many 2nd Amendment types seem to forget the "well regulated" part of the amendment. NRA headquarters in DC only has the second part of the 2nd Amendment on their headquarters, conveniently omitting the word "regulated."

“Well regulated” was not used in the way you are suggesting. Most “2nd amendment types” understand that. To suggest it meant, in any form, “More government”, represents a complete lack of acknowledgement of contexts and time in which the Constitution was written.

Quote

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The reference to a "well regulated" militia, probably conjures up a connotation at odds with the meaning intended by the Framers. In today's English, the term "well regulated" probably implies heavy and intense government regulation. However, that conclusion is erroneous.

The words "well regulated" had a far different meaning at the time the Second Amendment was drafted. In the context of the Constitution's provisions for Congressional power over certain aspects of the militia, and in the context of the Framers' definition of "militia," government regulation was not the intended meaning. Rather, the term meant only what it says, that the necessary militia be well regulated, but not by the national government.

To determine the meaning of the Constitution, one must start with the words of the Constitution itself. If the meaning is plain, that meaning controls. To ascertain the meaning of the term "well regulated" as it was used in the Second Amendment, it is necessary to begin with the purpose of the Second Amendment itself. The overriding purpose of the Framers in guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms was as a check on the standing army, which the Constitution gave the Congress the power to "raise and support."

As Noah Webster put it in a pamphlet urging ratification of the Constitution, "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe." George Mason remarked to his Virginia delegates regarding the colonies' recent experience with Britain, in which the Monarch's goal had been "to disarm the people; that [that] . . . was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." A widely reprinted article by Tench Coxe, an ally and correspondent of James Madison, described the Second Amendment's overriding goal as a check upon the national government's standing army: As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.

Thus, the well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free state was a militia that might someday fight against a standing army raised and supported by a tyrannical national government. Obviously, for that reason, the Framers did not say "A Militia well regulated by the Congress, being necessary to the security of a free State" -- because a militia so regulated might not be separate enough from, or free enough from, the national government, in the sense of both physical and operational control, to preserve the "security of a free State."

I quotes the amendment to correct your post that claimed that it said "a well armed militia."

I'm familiar with how the "related" part of the 2nd amendment has been interpreted to mean. I was merely pointing out how NRA types so fiercely fight against any government regulation that they don't even quote the entire Second Amendment on the side of their headquarters.

The gun violence you talk about here is directly related to the war on drugs that doesn't exist in these other countries. When folks do business without protected rights of contract, bloodshed becomes the only means of justice when things go wrong. Compare the incarceration rates and drugs laws of these other countries to the United States and you will see a growing disparity. Gun violence dropped exponentially the further we got away from prohibtion and only rose again when Nixon began the War On Drugs.

We as a community need to look at the problem at root cause, which I believe is mental illness. I'm not suggesting anything more than that. Living in a free country has inherent risk.

Jefferson said: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants". But I am sure he was not talking about open revolt. One has to understand the mindset then and the dangers.

Times are different today. If you need a gun to defend yourself, sir, then you should not wear the mantle of man.

Are you aware that under seven yards a man with a knife can easily beat a man with a gun. The FBI has tested this as well.

People think they are good with their guns but most are not. I bet many would shoot themselves in the leg in a crisis situation or kill bystanders. But not in our John Wanye culture everyone is a tough guy. But thing is these tough guys are never around when the going is tough.

It takes more than a gun to win a fight. Training really helps. I am a combat veteran and I 've seen trained soldiers screw up in a fight and civilians are much worse and untrained. Just ask the cops here.

The gun violence you talk about here is directly related to the war on drugs that doesn't exist in these other countries. When folks do business without protected rights of contract, bloodshed becomes the only means of justice when things go wrong. Compare the incarceration rates and drugs laws of these other countries to the United States and you will see a growing disparity. Gun violence dropped exponentially the further we got away from prohibtion and only rose again when Nixon began the War On Drugs.

We as a community need to look at the problem at root cause, which I believe is mental illness. I'm not suggesting anything more than that. Living in a free country has inherent risk.

The US murder rate per 100,000 citizens in 1960 and 2010 is similar.

Canada is a free country and their murder rate by gun is a lot lower. The root cause in the US might be our history of violence combined with our lax gun laws and easy availability of guns.

Unless you'e trying to claim that Americans are more predisposed to mental illness than other first world countries, all of whom have drastically lower gun murder rates.